How should I understand the CC's view on capital punishment?

[Jaberwocky]

Again that is a moral point of view. What is moral and what is legal are two completely different things. CP is a legal concept. And I think that is why the CCC is written I’m that way because you have to address it from a legal point of view.

So legally there is no obligation of the state to maintain justice?

 

[Evan]

Again that is a moral point of view. What is moral and what is legal are two completely different things. CP is a legal concept. And I think that is why the CCC is written I’m that way because you have to address it from a legal point of view.

The purpose of govt is to enact laws that support moral views. eg Do not murder, do not steal, do not bear false witness, etc.

It is incumbent upon the Executive and Judicial branches to try, to it’s best ability, to enforce the laws the support moral views.

If govt can only act when 100% certainty is known, then govt can never enforce any law.

 

[Ender]

CP is a legal concept.

Punishment is a moral concept and capital punishment raises moral questions as well, which is why the church has addressed the issue since the very beginning of her existence.

And I think that is why the CCC is written I’m that way because you have to address it from a legal point of view.

The church’s expertise is in moral issues, not legal ones. Her doctrines on punishment, justice, atonement, forgiveness, mercy, etc are all intertwined. Capital punishment has to be addressed within that overall moral framework.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

As I said before, while I personally hold that Capital Punishment should probably be removed from the legal system today, we cannot deny that it is a valid method of punishment.

Yes, it is conditionally valid… “the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.” There is no argument there and really, that is evident to the common sense anyway.

There is a bit of a problem with the CCC on this issue because it leaves out something more about the matter. That is the “medicinal” qualities of it. So the CCC in this sense is missing some teachings of the Church on this issue.

Do you mean its ‘retributive’ value? The CCC does address that though in saying… *“The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.” *

We cannot invoke a retributive value on behalf of God. We don’t have that privilege. As Card. Dulles writes… *"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.” *

We are called to a new way of justice as per Galatians 5:13-15 … “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

When taken as a whole, we see that Capital Punishment is not about safeguarding lives from the criminal. It also has to do with justice and making the criminal repent.

Yes justice is served by punishing the criminal, but the law as revealed to us by Christ behoves us to weigh our judgements against the maxim of loving neighbour as self and the golden rule in general. Now that was not the brief of the Old Testament faithful. They were to obey the Lord through the words He put in the prophets mouths first and foremost. We who have been freed by the life, death and resurrection of Christ must serve God build the Kingdom by the new maxim.

While I personally agree that today this can be done in alternate ways other than Capital Punishment, and probably should be removed out of prudence considering the tendency to treat life like dirt, you have to be clear on the reasons.

It’s good to have clear reasons to satisfy our need to see and know, but we can also feel assured that informed by this neighbourly love and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christs Church has the power to bind and loose in God’s name and until Jesus comes again, we must listen to her.

 

[Jaberwocky]

Do you mean its ‘retributive’ value? The CCC does address that though in saying… *“The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good.” *

We cannot invoke a retributive value on behalf of God. We don’t have that privilege. As Card. Dulles writes… *"Retribution by the State has its limits because the State, unlike God, enjoys neither omniscience nor omnipotence. According to Christian faith, God “will render to every man according to his works” at the final judgment (Romans 2:6; cf. Matthew 16:27). Retribution by the State can only be a symbolic anticipation of God’s perfect justice.” *

We are called to a new way of justice as per Galatians 5:13-15 … “You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. For the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you bite and devour each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.”

I am not speaking of retributive value in the sense of God. I am talking about the value of punishment as a deterrent and as a method of causing the person to repent.

That is not something we cannot do. Parents do that with their children all the time. The Church does that all the time during confession as she assigns penances.

Yes justice is served by punishing the criminal, but the law as revealed to us by Christ behoves us to weigh our judgements against the maxim of loving neighbour as self and the golden rule in general. Now that was not the brief of the Old Testament faithful. They were to obey the Lord through the words He put in the prophets mouths first and foremost. We who have been freed by the life, death and resurrection of Christ must serve God build the Kingdom by the new maxim.

Let me pose the question differently. The Church held that Capital Punishment was a valid method of punishment in its doctrine. What you say above seems to suggest that this doctrine was wrong. Is that possible?

I am also curious as to why you make a division with the new and the old in the sense you have done. Are you aware that there are passages in the new that speak very rigidly as much as the Old Testament? How do you feel about St. Paul’s words on the person engaged in sexual immorality saying that the community should chase him out and allow his flesh to be destroyed by the devil.

“When you are assembled, and my spirit is present with the power of our Lord Jesus, you are to hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” 1 Cor 5:4-5

Is it possible that you are mistaken as to what exactly was left behind in the old? Are you aware of Marcionism?

It’s good to have clear reasons to satisfy our need to see and know, but we can also feel assured that informed by this neighbourly love and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Christs Church has the power to bind and loose in God’s name and until Jesus comes again, we must listen to her.

The Church binds when she declares something as law or in situations like the sacrament of penance when she binds the temporal punishment to the penance she commands.

Issue here is not so much about listening to her. As I indicated, I agree with you that Capital Punishment should probably be removed today since its effects can be established in other ways and it would be prudent to do so. But that is different from saying the theology behind Capital Punishment has now passed and that now we have discovered it to be an unacceptable method of punishment. It unnecessarily puts the Church itself in the wrong for her actions in the past.

 

[Ender]

I am not speaking of retributive value in the sense of God. I am talking about the value of punishment as a deterrent and as a method of causing the person to repent.

Once we renounce the retributive dimension of punishment we have lost the only justification for punishing someone.

We do not punish innocent people to deter others; we punish only the guilty and that is because they deserve it.Punishment may be considered in two ways. First, under the aspect of punishment, and in this way punishment is not due save for sin, because by means of punishment the equality of justice is restored (Aquinas)
We have lost the understanding that sin deserves punishment, demands punishment, and it is necessary because nothing else restores “the equality of justice.” We cannot ignore the church’s understanding of retribution because we have grown uncomfortable with the idea ourselves because without that understanding there is no just basis for any kind of punishment.“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium …"

*For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. *(Pius XII)
There is a recent article in First Things titled Just War as Punishment that gives a good explanation of the value of and need for retributive punishment. The concepts are no different with respect to individuals.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/10/just-war-as-punishment

Ender

 

[sw85]

Okay, so abortion (among other topics) is something that has consistently been condemned in Church teaching since its beginning, and infallibly defined as morally evil. We will not find such a thing for capital punishment. Capital punishment was openly practiced through the entirety of the past two millenniums in Christian lands, and continues to be practiced some today. There didn’t seem to be a huge outcry from the Church with that, or if there was, it was a peep compared to its firmness on other issues. However, taking a life is always an evil thing, and in Catholic theology it only is made acceptable through the principle of double effect.

So how is it that this view developed into a more firm stance against capital punishment today, when the technology to quarantine people is something that has been around for ages? If, let’s say, we fell into a dystopian future, would this cease to be much of an issue once again? How much of this is discretionary?

I don’t think the CCC should be read as saying that the mere fact that criminals can be quarantined is a good reason not to execute them since, as you point out, we could’ve done this long ago, and also because, as Ender has admirably demonstrated on this thread and others, the liceity in principle of the death penalty is utterly non-arguable. Rather it is saying that this fact + a variety of prudential reasons mean we should avoid executing except in truly grave circumstances.

Those prudential reasons include, most prominently, the fact that modern society, being secularized, no longer experiences the execution of criminals as the enactment of transcendent justice, which it no longer believes in, but merely as the enactment of the will of the mob’s hunger for vengeance. In other words secular modernity has so badly disordered the common understanding of the nature of the state that it is, in some ways, undermining the state’s legitimacy, including its authority to carry the sword. Executing criminals in the Papal States of Pius IX (who famously refused to grant a stay of execution to one criminal by saying simply “I do not want to” – and yet he is beatified!) is one thing; executing criminals under a deranged leftist pseudo-state is quite another.

 

[Ender]

Those prudential reasons include, most prominently, the fact that modern society, being secularized, no longer experiences the execution of criminals as the enactment of transcendent justice, which it no longer believes in, but merely as the enactment of the will of the mob’s hunger for vengeance. In other words secular modernity has so badly disordered the common understanding of the nature of the state that it is, in some ways, undermining the state’s legitimacy, including its authority to carry the sword.

I think this statement in all probability captures why JPII opposed capital punishment. Cardinal Dulles expressed a similar concern*Another objection observes that the death penalty often has the effect of whetting an inordinate appetite for revenge rather than satisfying an authentic zeal for justice. By giving in to a perverse spirit of vindictiveness or a morbid attraction to the gruesome, the courts contribute to the degradation of the culture, replicating the worst features of the Roman Empire in its period of decline. *
Furthermore, critics say, capital punishment cheapens the value of life. By giving the impression that human beings sometimes have the right to kill, it fosters a casual attitude toward evils such as abortion, suicide, and euthanasia.
Cardinal Dulles recognized, however, that his concerns (like those of the Magisterium and JPII) were personal objections to its use in contemporary societies and not concerns about its place in the moral order.The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.
Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

Once we renounce the retributive dimension of punishment we have lost the only justification for punishing someone.

We do not punish innocent people to deter others; we punish only the guilty and that is because they deserve it.Punishment may be considered in two ways. First, under the aspect of punishment, and in this way punishment is not due save for sin, because by means of punishment the equality of justice is restored (Aquinas)
We have lost the understanding that sin deserves punishment, demands punishment, and it is necessary because nothing else restores “the equality of justice.” We cannot ignore the church’s understanding of retribution because we have grown uncomfortable with the idea ourselves because without that understanding there is no just basis for any kind of punishment.“A penalty is the reaction required by law and justice in response to a fault: penalty and fault are action and reaction. Order violated by a culpable act demands the reintegration and re-establishment of the disturbed equilibrium …"

*For the fundamental demand of justice, whose role in morality is to maintain the existing equilibrium, when it is just, and to restore the balance when upset. It demands that by punishment the person responsible be forcibly brought to order; and the fulfillment of this demand proclaims the absolute supremacy of good over evil; right triumphs sovereignly over wrong. *(Pius XII)
There is a recent article in First Things titled Just War as Punishment that gives a good explanation of the value of and need for retributive punishment. The concepts are no different with respect to individuals.
firstthings.com/onthesquare/2013/10/just-war-as-punishment

Ender

I am not sure the retributive element must be stressed to the extent you say because it can be detrimental to your own position.

One can say that they choose to forgo retribution.

So I think that is perhaps where you are losing your opponents on this topic. Retribution is not the issue here because one can choose to forgo retribution and let God take care of it. But what one cannot do is neglect ones responsibility to safeguard the sense of justice in society and make sure evil acts are discouraged. That is why the remedial qualities of Capital Punishment are more important in this topic than the retributive one.

When you stress the retributive aspect as you do, you also risk coming across as someone just out for a Mosaic style “eye for an eye” attitude. As we know from the Mosaic law, while it is completely valid to retaliate with an eye for an eye, one can also choose to forgo this retribution and is also called to do so as Christians.

 

[Ender]

I am not sure the retributive element must be stressed to the extent you say because it can be detrimental to your own position.

I’m sure stressing retribution loses me supporters for my position but as I believe it the central point of the issue I cannot agree that it weakens my position … even though it must surely weaken support for it.

One can say that they choose to forgo retribution.

I really don’t think this is their position because retribution cannot be forgone. It is a demand of justice and cannot be dismissed (except in exceptional cases). *‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. *(Pius XII)

So I think that is perhaps where you are losing your opponents on this topic. Retribution is not the issue here because one can choose to forgo retribution and let God take care of it.

Retribution is the primary objective of punishment; how can we choose to forgo it and believe that justice has been satisfied?402. In order to protect the common good, the lawful public authority must exercise the right and the duty to inflict punishments according to the seriousness of the crimes committed … (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)

But what one cannot do is neglect ones responsibility to safeguard the sense of justice in society and make sure evil acts are discouraged. That is why the remedial qualities of Capital Punishment are more important in this topic than the retributive one.

The primary objective of all punishment is retribution (CCC 2266) and capital punishment is not an exception.

When you stress the retributive aspect as you do, you also risk coming across as someone just out for a Mosaic style “eye for an eye” attitude.

I understand how this comes across to others but that’s because - as I tried to point out - we have lost the proper understanding of punishment itself. There is great confusion about its purposes and justification.

As we know from the Mosaic law, while it is completely valid to retaliate with an eye for an eye, one can also choose to forgo this retribution and is also called to do so as Christians.

The individual is forbidden to exact retribution but the state is compelled to (CCC 2266).

Ender

 

[TimothyH]

Mercy is always better than justice.

For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:13)

St. Thomas Aquinas says that mercy is the fullness of justice.

I don’t think anyone ever went to Hell for showing mercy.

-Tim-

 

[Jaberwocky]

I’m sure stressing retribution loses me supporters for my position but as I believe it the central point of the issue I cannot agree that it weakens my position … even though it must surely weaken support for it.
I really don’t think this is their position because retribution cannot be forgone. It is a demand of justice and cannot be dismissed (except in exceptional cases). ‘this retributive function of punishment is concerned not immediately with what is protected by the law but with the very law itself. There is nothing more necessary for the national and international community than respect for the majesty of the law and the salutary thought that the law is sacred and protected, so that whoever breaks it is liable to punishment and will be punished’. (Pius XII)
Retribution is the primary objective of punishment; how can we choose to forgo it and believe that justice has been satisfied?402. In order to protect the common good, the lawful public authority must exercise the right and the duty to inflict punishments according to the seriousness of the crimes committed … (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church)
The primary objective of all punishment is retribution (CCC 2266) and capital punishment is not an exception.
I understand how this comes across to others but that’s because - as I tried to point out - we have lost the proper understanding of punishment itself. There is great confusion about its purposes and justification.
The individual is forbidden to exact retribution but the state is compelled to (CCC 2266).

Ender

Have you thought about why the Church says that retribution is allowed for the state but not for the individual?

The right for retribution, while always exists, is not always up for us to carry out. We can indeed forgo. If you are correct in asserting that it can never be foregone, then shouldn’t the murderers of Christ be put to death? Why is it that no one attempted such a fiat even through legal means?

Are you also aware that the Church can bound the temporal punishment, as it does in confession, to other forms of punishment aimed to carry out the remedial aspect?

How do you reconcile your strict view of retribution with these aspects?

 

[Ender]

Mercy is always better than justice.For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:13)St. Thomas Aquinas says that mercy is the fullness of justice.

Both mercy and justice are virtues and it is not accurate to believe one trumps the other.Mercy differs from justice, but is not in opposition to it… (JPII)

Q. 177. Why must God be “just” as well as “merciful”?
*A. God must be just as well as merciful because He must fulfill His promise to punish those who merit punishment, and because He cannot be infinite in one perfection without being infinite in all. *(Baltimore Catechism)

I don’t think anyone ever went to Hell for showing mercy.

Perhaps not but there are times when mercy is not appropriate.* of the murderer it is written (Deuteronomy 19:12-13): “He shall die. Thou shalt not pity him.” *(Aquinas)

“this movement of the mind” (viz. mercy) “obeys the reason, when mercy is vouchsafed in such a way that justice is safeguarded, whether we give to the needy or forgive the repentant.” (Augustine)
There is a further issue regarding mercy which is that it requires one to accept that if life without parole is the merciful punishment then execution has to be the just punishment. We do not consider it merciful to impose on a person the full punishment his action merits; it is only merciful to give him less than he fully deserves. That being so, if you want to insist that not executing is the merciful action then you have to admit that execution is the just action. Are you prepared to admit that?

Ender

 

[TK421]

I don’t think the CCC should be read as saying that the mere fact that criminals can be quarantined is a good reason not to execute them since, as you point out, we could’ve done this long ago, and also because, as Ender has admirably demonstrated on this thread and others, the liceity in principle of the death penalty is utterly non-arguable. Rather it is saying that this fact + a variety of prudential reasons mean we should avoid executing except in truly grave circumstances.

Those prudential reasons include, most prominently, the fact that modern society, being secularized, no longer experiences the execution of criminals as the enactment of transcendent justice, which it no longer believes in, but merely as the enactment of the will of the mob’s hunger for vengeance. In other words secular modernity has so badly disordered the common understanding of the nature of the state that it is, in some ways, undermining the state’s legitimacy, including its authority to carry the sword. Executing criminals in the Papal States of Pius IX (who famously refused to grant a stay of execution to one criminal by saying simply “I do not want to” – and yet he is beatified!) is one thing; executing criminals under a deranged leftist pseudo-state is quite another.

Fits like a glove. This response has put my mind to rest with grasping the reason for the shift in view. Thank you.

 

[Ender]

Have you thought about why the Church says that retribution is allowed for the state but not for the individual?

*Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” *(Rom 12:19)

But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:4)

The right for retribution, while always exists, is not always up for us to carry out. We can indeed forgo.

For “we” as individuals it is never allowed for us to exact retribution. For “we” as ministers of the state it is our obligation to do so.

If you are correct in asserting that it can never be foregone, then shouldn’t the murderers of Christ be put to death? Why is it that no one attempted such a fiat even through legal means?

I didn’t say it could never be omitted; I have already recognized that exceptional circumstances have to be considered. Recognizing the exception however does not change the rule: the state is obligated to punish crimes. As for executing Christ’s executioners how would that have been done since it was by state authority that he was executed - an authority that Christ explained came from God himself? (Which is not to say that God necessarily approves of how that authority is exercised.)

Are you also aware that the Church can bound the temporal punishment, as it does in confession, to other forms of punishment aimed to carry out the remedial aspect?

The church has her duties and the state has its own.

How do you reconcile your strict view of retribution with these aspects?

I don’t believe I have a strict view of retribution. I think it is more accurate to say that most people believe that retribution is wrong and ought to be avoided whenever possible, rather than being an obligation of justice.

 

[Jaberwocky]

*Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave room for the wrath of God; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” *(Rom 12:19)

But if you do what is wrong, you should be afraid, for the authority does not bear the sword in vain! It is the servant of God to execute wrath on the wrongdoer. (Rom 13:4)
For “we” as individuals it is never allowed for us to exact retribution. For “we” as ministers of the state it is our obligation to do so.
I didn’t say it could never be omitted; I have already recognized that exceptional circumstances have to be considered. Recognizing the exception however does not change the rule: the state is obligated to punish crimes. As for executing Christ’s executioners how would that have been done since it was by state authority that he was executed - an authority that Christ explained came from God himself? (Which is not to say that God necessarily approves of how that authority is exercised.)
The church has her duties and the state has its own.
I don’t believe I have a strict view of retribution. I think it is more accurate to say that most people believe that retribution is wrong and ought to be avoided whenever possible, rather than being an obligation of justice.

To understand you more clearly, it is your view that if one (or the State) were to forgive a murderer, it is a sin due to not carrying out retribution? Am I correctly understanding you?

 

[Ender]

To understand you more clearly, it is your view that if one (or the State) were to forgive a murderer, it is a sin due to not carrying out retribution? Am I correctly understanding you?

A private citizen has the obligation to forgive. The state has the obligation to punish. If (under normal circumstances) the state fails to punish a murderer it fails to render justice. It has manifestly acted unjustly.

I’ll go a little further and point out that this is not “my” position. This is church doctrine.

Ender

 

[Jaberwocky]

A private citizen has the obligation to forgive. The state has the obligation to punish. If (under normal circumstances) the state fails to punish a murderer it fails to render justice. It has manifestly acted unjustly.

I’ll go a little further and point out that this is not “my” position. This is church doctrine.

Ender

So can you present the specific Church teaching on this matter? Please do keep in mind that I am not looking for Church doctrine that states the STATE has the authority to punish but rather a statement that says the state MUST enact retribution.

I am inclined to think that you won’t find any such statements because it cannot make much sense. Retribution, even if carried out by the state is done in place of the individual. The state is an institution at the service of the individual rather than a separate hierarchy that exists at the service of God (I would think that branch is the Church).

Therefore I feel that this distinction you attempt to make on the matter of obligation (not authority) between individual and state is not tenable and is rather artificial. The state has the authority to apply Capital Punishment if the individuals choose to give it power to do so. But it doesn’t have an obligation to do so if the individuals decide otherwise in the retributive sense. Since we know that individuals can decide otherwise, the state can decide otherwise as well. Therefore the remaining obligation only exists in the remedial sense because it is to serve the other individuals in the society and the individual who committed the act (hence once again at the service of the individual).

 

[LongingSoul]

Have you thought about why the Church says that retribution is allowed for the state but not for the individual?

The right for retribution, while always exists, is not always up for us to carry out. We can indeed forgo. If you are correct in asserting that it can never be foregone, then shouldn’t the murderers of Christ be put to death? Why is it that no one attempted such a fiat even through legal means?

Are you also aware that the Church can bound the temporal punishment, as it does in confession, to other forms of punishment aimed to carry out the remedial aspect?

How do you reconcile your strict view of retribution with these aspects?

Enders strict views on retribution fly in the face of St Thomas Aquinas teaching.

"All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. "

Summa Theologica II-II Q108 Art2

 

[Jaberwocky]

Enders strict views on retribution fly in the face of St Thomas Aquinas teaching.

"All who sin mortally are deserving of eternal death, as regards future retribution, which is in accordance with the truth of the divine judgment. But the punishments of this life are more of a medicinal character; wherefore the punishment of death is inflicted on those sins alone which conduce to the grave undoing of others. "

Summa Theologica II-II Q108 Art2

Very interesting find.